Yes, I know I'm free to evaluate their products. Thanks for the reminder.
You can't separate the CEO's thoughts on privacy from the services the company puts out. Yes, I do choose not to use a company's products if the CEO, or anyone else high up in the company, has made a statement that reflects negatively on the way they're going to treat me as a customer. If Steve Ballmer said anyone who uses Windows 7 is an idiot, people would probably be less inclined to upgrade to Windows 7.
Eric Schmidt's proclamation that anybody who cares about their privacy is hiding something is a sign that he puts the company's desires for data collection and indexing above the customer's. You are no longer an individual; you're a set of data to be sold to advertisers. If you don't care about these things, then you are just the kind of unconcerned consumer that Google wants using their services.
Most people don't understand WiFi networking and don't realize they're broadcasting anything. I didn't say people weren't free to take pictures of your house. I'm just pointing out that you're supporting a company whose CEO said only criminals worry about privacy. If you're okay with that, then Google loves fans like you!
It's actually more relevant that he's a Google engineer, because the point of his talk is actually to promote a Google-invented programmed language called Go, which was not mentioned in the summary.
I get the impression that developers sometimes forget that programming languages are engineering tools. People building houses don't complain that the hammers and nails aren't pretty while they build a foundation. Part of your job is dealing with hard, ugly, complex things. You're instructing a machine.
As programs get more and more complex, more and more abstraction is needed between the programmer and the hardware.
I think that, if anything, they've gotten less complex as the reliance on APIs and other pieced-together software components has increased. I certainly don't see a trend toward more complex software when I see all those iPhone fart apps.
C's closeness to the hardware is probably why it has stayed relevant in the era of mobile computing and battery life. Some developers do need to tell the computer every nitty-gritty detail.
I wonder what Intel's response is, especially since Microsoft is such a long-time partner. Apple went with A4, and here Microsoft is licensing ARM too. The emerging market is mobile computing, so what's the future for Intel? Surely, they can't live on x86 forever, and Atom currently isn't competitive with ARM when it comes to battery life.
What if the choice he accepts is the same thing you had suggested but submitted by one of his favored developers? Credit for work is one of the few rewards for contributing to Linux.
His dismissal of good ideas followed by later acceptance of the same ideas from pet developers is one of the reasons I lost a lot of respect for him. Credit for something is one of the few rewards for volunteer work in the open source community, and not properly attributing things can be a direct blow to people's careers as developers.
The open source community is particularly ego-driven because it is volunteer work. There is no threat of getting fired, no reprimanding from a boss for being antisocial, and no humble assignment to a mundane programming task that isn't fun but must be completed.
Not to come off as a troll (too late?), but it's interesting to see that kind of post on a site that consistently takes an anti-copyright, pro-piracy stance. In piracy articles, other people's work is free to trade. In GPL articles, other people's work suddenly should be protected.
In reality, without copyright, the GPL would have no power, because it's a copyright license! It seems that implication is lost on many people who take a strong anti-copyright stance in the comments for some articles and a pro-GPL stance in others.
This comment is completely insane. The "Fairness Doctrine" (another one of those lovely, loaded names for legislation) would give the government the power to judge how "fair" it thought something was being. This alone should sound alarm bells, but apparently, Slashdot has almost completely lost its libertarian viewpoint and veered way off into big-government land, so I'll go on.
The Fairness Doctrine gives the government the power to micro-manage ideas. It's an attempt to artificially inflate an opposing viewpoint to create what the government thinks is a "fair and balanced" (sound familiar?) worldview. No government should have the right to decide how fair it thinks the media is being. The media must always be free to report on what it wants. Corrupt politicians could abuse the Fairness Doctrine to prop up a particular viewpoint in spite of what the public actually thought about something, thereby giving the government control over the flow of information. It's a step toward state-controlled media.
The Fairness Doctrine was sour grapes from the more liberal politicians in Congress who hated that conservative radio and TV talk shows were so effective in getting their message across, yet liberal radio stations like Air America couldn't find an audience. It apparently never occurred to them that newspapers and network news are well-known to skew left-of-center, but Fox News was just too good a counter and way too popular and uncontrolled for their liking.
TOUGH SHIT. That's the market. Come up with a better product, and you'll find customers. Part of living in a democracy is tolerating the existence of opposing opinions. This is reminiscent of Al Gore's crusade to save newspapers from the internet, as if it's the government's job to rescue every industry that becomes obsolete. If journalists at a newspaper want to keep working, make a better product (in this case, they need to adapt to alternative media like the web the way conservatives did). The government will never properly micromanage something like this.
The internet is uncontrollable--it puts power in the hands of the city-state rather than the nation-state. In fact, much of Obama's time in office has been an example of the struggle between the rise of power of the anti-government city-state against the faltering, pro-government nation-state. If you don't like Fox News, that doesn't mean it requires government regulation. Again, this should be self-evident to someone with a brain, but this is Slashdot. If you don't like Fox News, you start a rival station, or you release negative documentaries about Fox News, or start websites criticizing it. This whiny, obsessive need to run to the government whenever you come across something you don't like is a genuine threat to the freedom of ideas.
So the FCC is the organization that can protect the consumer if it has the laws and regulations to do so. It has done more in the past and with net neutrality and maybe recovering the fairness doctrine we can get back to a more friendly place in the airwaves that is part of the public trust.
Truly, a frightening scenario. A government deciding what information is allowed through internet traffic and what information is reported to the public. I'll pass on that kind of "protection."
YOU think the airwaves aren't a friendly place because you are probably not a conservative, so you don't like hearing conservative shows. It actually bothers you that they exist and are popular. That doesn't mean they should be regulated or restricted so that liberal shows get a "fair shot." It just means the conservatives found their market, and your guys didn't. There are lots of stupid ideas out there I think are ridiculous, but I'd never run to the government to try to silence them.
Seriously, what happened to the libertarian Slashdot? This place has really gone left-of-center in a sort of scary way. Arguing in favor of government regulation of the media? Really surprising.
Again, you actually believe the government regulating internet traffic is going to be the absence of filtering? Government--the most corrupt organization in the world--is somehow going to be more neutral than a private organization that is beholden to customer satisfaction? That lobby groups like the RIAA won't petition for special restrictions on torrent traffic?
On top of that, an ISP should absolutely be allowed to decide how its network is run and what traffic goes across it. Internet access isn't a constitutional right. It's their network--they can run it however they want to, and if you don't like it, that's life. I don't like the color of my office, but that doesn't mean the government has the right to restrict what colors offices are painted in.
Stop bringing more and more government into our lives!
Net neutrality is about the government deciding what restrictions exist for internet traffic. It is absolutely a government takeover of internet traffic.
ISPs are providing a service. They have EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD to regulate what's passing through their networks, because it's their network.
Alas, we are witnessing yet another sign of the corrupted nature of IP laws in Australia and internationally.
Thanks for telling me what to think, submitter. iPood is totally not an attempt to dilute the trademark of iPod, and there's no way I would get sued if I released the Xbocks 360 or started a store called Wall-mart.
Is this for real? Has all logic completely left Slashdot?
Ironic that this is hot on the heels of Slashdot's pro-net neutrality story. If the government took over the internet, it would make sure to "regulate" any websites posting this kind of cracking information. Want to pirate it on Bittorrent? Sorry, the government would "regulate" Bittorrent too thanks to political donations from lobby groups like the RIAA/MPAA. In fact, the government would require all your activities to be logged by ISPs for investigative purposes.
Net neutrality--proving that there are always people naive enough to hand great things over to the government where they are ruined forever.
Why do you think Comcast doesn't have a right to regulate traffic on its own networks? It's their service. Torrent traffic isn't some constitutional right. If sysadmins determine that torrent traffic is negatively affecting their network, they should be able to regulate it however they see fit--colleges do it all the time.
I want sysadmins running ISPs, not bribed politicians in Washington. And that's the funny part--you think handing the internet over to the government means there won't be interference with torrent traffic, as if the RIAA isn't eager to make "political donations" to politicians to regulate torrent traffic, "for purposes of economic stability." There are all kinds of negative information the government would love to have removed (I mean, "regulated"), from hacking sites to partisan blogs. Having the government regulate the internet would make things MORE biased, lop-sided, and corrupt.
I seriously wonder where net neutrality supporters are getting this notion that the government is neutral at all.The GOP will probably take Congress and prevent a government takeover of the internet--thank goodness. It would be a crushing blow to freedom of speech and the flowing of ideas. The government FUCKS UP EVERYTHING IT DOES. It can't even handle public education without falling on its ass. Why would anyone think this would be a good idea?
How are they trying to protect consumers? Governments are even more corrupt and evil than companies. You seriously, truly want the government to regulate your internet traffic? You're okay with lobby groups like the RIAA bribing politicians to hinder torrent traffic or demand that ISPs log all user traffic for investigative purposes?
I've never understood the net neutrality argument or how anybody with a rational mind could possibly want to hand the internet back to the government. The government is corrupt, biased, slow-moving, overreactive, and out of touch. What on Earth would possess you to want them to regulate your internet traffic?
Yes, because any organization is only capable of handling a single issue at one time. Why do people still use this retarded argument? It never makes sense. Seriously, you believe an attorney general being involved in a probe of a gigantic corporation that's driving vans all over the world, scanning and archiving WiFi networks and MAC addresses, means that states don't care about crime and violence?
Defend Google if you have a legitimate point to make, but your argument is just plain stupid. It's like saying the feds don't care about pedophiles if they lock up crack dealers, or they don't care about terrorists if they lock up serial rapists. In this case, they're just investigating how and why Google collected and saved neighborhood WiFi network data. That's not such a crazy thing to do when you're dealing with a gigantic advertising company that has a substantial position of power on the internet and indexes everything for ad delivery purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I know I'm free to evaluate their products. Thanks for the reminder.
You can't separate the CEO's thoughts on privacy from the services the company puts out. Yes, I do choose not to use a company's products if the CEO, or anyone else high up in the company, has made a statement that reflects negatively on the way they're going to treat me as a customer. If Steve Ballmer said anyone who uses Windows 7 is an idiot, people would probably be less inclined to upgrade to Windows 7.
Eric Schmidt's proclamation that anybody who cares about their privacy is hiding something is a sign that he puts the company's desires for data collection and indexing above the customer's. You are no longer an individual; you're a set of data to be sold to advertisers. If you don't care about these things, then you are just the kind of unconcerned consumer that Google wants using their services.
One man? He's the CEO. His views influence the behavior of the company.
Most people don't understand WiFi networking and don't realize they're broadcasting anything. I didn't say people weren't free to take pictures of your house. I'm just pointing out that you're supporting a company whose CEO said only criminals worry about privacy. If you're okay with that, then Google loves fans like you!
How will you fence off a satellite image?
I know, I know, it's pointless to argue with Slashdotters who looooove Google.
It's actually more relevant that he's a Google engineer, because the point of his talk is actually to promote a Google-invented programmed language called Go, which was not mentioned in the summary.
Yeah, it's not like Google is driving past your house to take pictures and index your WiFi network or anything. Sheesh!
I get the impression that developers sometimes forget that programming languages are engineering tools. People building houses don't complain that the hammers and nails aren't pretty while they build a foundation. Part of your job is dealing with hard, ugly, complex things. You're instructing a machine.
Eventually, those higher-level devs will create a solution so generalized that it'll be its own programming language, within the programming language.
I think that, if anything, they've gotten less complex as the reliance on APIs and other pieced-together software components has increased. I certainly don't see a trend toward more complex software when I see all those iPhone fart apps.
C's closeness to the hardware is probably why it has stayed relevant in the era of mobile computing and battery life. Some developers do need to tell the computer every nitty-gritty detail.
I wonder what Intel's response is, especially since Microsoft is such a long-time partner. Apple went with A4, and here Microsoft is licensing ARM too. The emerging market is mobile computing, so what's the future for Intel? Surely, they can't live on x86 forever, and Atom currently isn't competitive with ARM when it comes to battery life.
What if the choice he accepts is the same thing you had suggested but submitted by one of his favored developers? Credit for work is one of the few rewards for contributing to Linux.
His dismissal of good ideas followed by later acceptance of the same ideas from pet developers is one of the reasons I lost a lot of respect for him. Credit for something is one of the few rewards for volunteer work in the open source community, and not properly attributing things can be a direct blow to people's careers as developers.
The open source community is particularly ego-driven because it is volunteer work. There is no threat of getting fired, no reprimanding from a boss for being antisocial, and no humble assignment to a mundane programming task that isn't fun but must be completed.
I suggest making this a thesis.
Not to come off as a troll (too late?), but it's interesting to see that kind of post on a site that consistently takes an anti-copyright, pro-piracy stance. In piracy articles, other people's work is free to trade. In GPL articles, other people's work suddenly should be protected.
In reality, without copyright, the GPL would have no power, because it's a copyright license! It seems that implication is lost on many people who take a strong anti-copyright stance in the comments for some articles and a pro-GPL stance in others.
This comment is completely insane. The "Fairness Doctrine" (another one of those lovely, loaded names for legislation) would give the government the power to judge how "fair" it thought something was being. This alone should sound alarm bells, but apparently, Slashdot has almost completely lost its libertarian viewpoint and veered way off into big-government land, so I'll go on.
The Fairness Doctrine gives the government the power to micro-manage ideas. It's an attempt to artificially inflate an opposing viewpoint to create what the government thinks is a "fair and balanced" (sound familiar?) worldview. No government should have the right to decide how fair it thinks the media is being. The media must always be free to report on what it wants. Corrupt politicians could abuse the Fairness Doctrine to prop up a particular viewpoint in spite of what the public actually thought about something, thereby giving the government control over the flow of information. It's a step toward state-controlled media.
The Fairness Doctrine was sour grapes from the more liberal politicians in Congress who hated that conservative radio and TV talk shows were so effective in getting their message across, yet liberal radio stations like Air America couldn't find an audience. It apparently never occurred to them that newspapers and network news are well-known to skew left-of-center, but Fox News was just too good a counter and way too popular and uncontrolled for their liking.
TOUGH SHIT. That's the market. Come up with a better product, and you'll find customers. Part of living in a democracy is tolerating the existence of opposing opinions. This is reminiscent of Al Gore's crusade to save newspapers from the internet, as if it's the government's job to rescue every industry that becomes obsolete. If journalists at a newspaper want to keep working, make a better product (in this case, they need to adapt to alternative media like the web the way conservatives did). The government will never properly micromanage something like this.
The internet is uncontrollable--it puts power in the hands of the city-state rather than the nation-state. In fact, much of Obama's time in office has been an example of the struggle between the rise of power of the anti-government city-state against the faltering, pro-government nation-state. If you don't like Fox News, that doesn't mean it requires government regulation. Again, this should be self-evident to someone with a brain, but this is Slashdot. If you don't like Fox News, you start a rival station, or you release negative documentaries about Fox News, or start websites criticizing it. This whiny, obsessive need to run to the government whenever you come across something you don't like is a genuine threat to the freedom of ideas.
Truly, a frightening scenario. A government deciding what information is allowed through internet traffic and what information is reported to the public. I'll pass on that kind of "protection."
YOU think the airwaves aren't a friendly place because you are probably not a conservative, so you don't like hearing conservative shows. It actually bothers you that they exist and are popular. That doesn't mean they should be regulated or restricted so that liberal shows get a "fair shot." It just means the conservatives found their market, and your guys didn't. There are lots of stupid ideas out there I think are ridiculous, but I'd never run to the government to try to silence them.
Seriously, what happened to the libertarian Slashdot? This place has really gone left-of-center in a sort of scary way. Arguing in favor of government regulation of the media? Really surprising.
Again, you actually believe the government regulating internet traffic is going to be the absence of filtering? Government--the most corrupt organization in the world--is somehow going to be more neutral than a private organization that is beholden to customer satisfaction? That lobby groups like the RIAA won't petition for special restrictions on torrent traffic?
On top of that, an ISP should absolutely be allowed to decide how its network is run and what traffic goes across it. Internet access isn't a constitutional right. It's their network--they can run it however they want to, and if you don't like it, that's life. I don't like the color of my office, but that doesn't mean the government has the right to restrict what colors offices are painted in.
Stop bringing more and more government into our lives!
Net neutrality is about the government deciding what restrictions exist for internet traffic. It is absolutely a government takeover of internet traffic.
ISPs are providing a service. They have EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD to regulate what's passing through their networks, because it's their network.
Thanks for telling me what to think, submitter. iPood is totally not an attempt to dilute the trademark of iPod, and there's no way I would get sued if I released the Xbocks 360 or started a store called Wall-mart.
Is this for real? Has all logic completely left Slashdot?
Bullying? Give me a break. You wouldn't be able to call yoursef Microosoft or AT&TT either. Apple has to prevent trademark dilution.
At least you admit you're an Apple-hater.
Burning some karma here.
Ironic that this is hot on the heels of Slashdot's pro-net neutrality story. If the government took over the internet, it would make sure to "regulate" any websites posting this kind of cracking information. Want to pirate it on Bittorrent? Sorry, the government would "regulate" Bittorrent too thanks to political donations from lobby groups like the RIAA/MPAA. In fact, the government would require all your activities to be logged by ISPs for investigative purposes.
Net neutrality--proving that there are always people naive enough to hand great things over to the government where they are ruined forever.
Why do you think Comcast doesn't have a right to regulate traffic on its own networks? It's their service. Torrent traffic isn't some constitutional right. If sysadmins determine that torrent traffic is negatively affecting their network, they should be able to regulate it however they see fit--colleges do it all the time.
I want sysadmins running ISPs, not bribed politicians in Washington. And that's the funny part--you think handing the internet over to the government means there won't be interference with torrent traffic, as if the RIAA isn't eager to make "political donations" to politicians to regulate torrent traffic, "for purposes of economic stability." There are all kinds of negative information the government would love to have removed (I mean, "regulated"), from hacking sites to partisan blogs. Having the government regulate the internet would make things MORE biased, lop-sided, and corrupt.
I seriously wonder where net neutrality supporters are getting this notion that the government is neutral at all.The GOP will probably take Congress and prevent a government takeover of the internet--thank goodness. It would be a crushing blow to freedom of speech and the flowing of ideas. The government FUCKS UP EVERYTHING IT DOES. It can't even handle public education without falling on its ass. Why would anyone think this would be a good idea?
How are they trying to protect consumers? Governments are even more corrupt and evil than companies. You seriously, truly want the government to regulate your internet traffic? You're okay with lobby groups like the RIAA bribing politicians to hinder torrent traffic or demand that ISPs log all user traffic for investigative purposes?
I've never understood the net neutrality argument or how anybody with a rational mind could possibly want to hand the internet back to the government. The government is corrupt, biased, slow-moving, overreactive, and out of touch. What on Earth would possess you to want them to regulate your internet traffic?
Yes, because any organization is only capable of handling a single issue at one time. Why do people still use this retarded argument? It never makes sense. Seriously, you believe an attorney general being involved in a probe of a gigantic corporation that's driving vans all over the world, scanning and archiving WiFi networks and MAC addresses, means that states don't care about crime and violence?
Defend Google if you have a legitimate point to make, but your argument is just plain stupid. It's like saying the feds don't care about pedophiles if they lock up crack dealers, or they don't care about terrorists if they lock up serial rapists. In this case, they're just investigating how and why Google collected and saved neighborhood WiFi network data. That's not such a crazy thing to do when you're dealing with a gigantic advertising company that has a substantial position of power on the internet and indexes everything for ad delivery purposes.